[ Page 737 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Mr. Lea — 737

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 737

Mr. Barrett — 740

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 741

Mr. Lea — 743

Mr. Lloyd — 745

Mr. Levi — 745

Mr. Shelford — 748

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 750

Mr. King — 751

Mr. Lauk — 754

Mr. Cocke — 756

Mr. Wallace — 759

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 761

Mr. Stupich — 762

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to welcome a newcomer to the gallery, but not to the Legislature — Mr. George McMinn and his lovely wife.

MR. SPEAKER: A stranger in the gallery? (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 79: minister's office, $141,324 — continued.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, a great many questions have been asked of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) by this side of the House, but very few answers have been coming back this way. But the great thrust, if we're to believe the Minister of Economic Development of that government, is to build highways.

You'll recall that the highways programme has been the programme that this government has been pushing for the past year. Announcing whether or not the province's economic destiny is going to be sound have been the Premier, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), and every other minister of that government. When pushed to come up with an answer as to what kind of economic development they're doing immediately to relieve the unemployment burden on this province, they say that they have a highways programme that they're going to develop.

At the $100 dinner, Mr. Chairman, the Premier said that they were considering legislation to make sure that when contractors were working in any specific part of the province, local people would be hired. The Premier said that that was going to be the policy of this government, and they were going to enshrine that policy in legislation. If it can be worked, I'm all for that kind of legislation. I notice the other rural members are with me on that one. We're all for that. But I wonder how the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) or the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) would feel if they were to find out that even though a highways programme may be going ahead and the contracts are being let, it doesn't mean work for British Columbians.

On Monday a new highways project was announced jointly by the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Economic Development at Mile 97 on the Alaska Highway — a $3.4 million contract. The contract has been awarded to North American Road Ltd. of Edmonton, which is coming into this province with non-union workers and non-British Columbians to do the job. There will not be British Columbians hired on that project.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Shame!

MR. LEA: There will not be British Columbians hired on that project.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Why?

MR. LEA: The reason is that the Edmonton company is non-union and has stated to members of local 167, Rock and Tunnel Workers, that they will not be utilizing members of that union. In fact, members of that union were told that they wouldn't be using union members at all, and that they would be bringing their own help with them from Edmonton, Alberta, to do that work.

MR. KEMPF: Are you saying that they're not British Columbians?

MR. LEA: Edmonton, Alberta, is not in British Columbia, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) The people who are going to be working on that project for North America Road Ltd. of Edmonton are going to be Albertans working on the Alaska Highway in the riding of North Peace. The project was announced jointly by the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Highways. No British Columbians are going to be working on that project.

Just before the supper break that was the main thing that that minister hung his whole defence on — the fact that he and the minister had announced a highway project. That was it. Now I would like the minister to stand up and tell us whether it's his idea of bringing the unemployment rolls in this province down by letting highway contracts that Albertans are going to be employed to do. Is that his idea of getting the economy going again, rolling again? I would like the minister to answer that question.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address myself to that subject, and I certainly didn't hang my hat on economic development in the province. I mentioned many things, but I did mention that the building of highways, particularly for the people of British Columbia as well as for the tourist industry, was part of our many-pronged economic development plans.

[ Page 738 ]

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): For Alberta.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: However, Mr. Chairman, the member has brought up a subject which we in this province have to come to grips with and, for once during this debate, maybe the members could make some positive suggestions as to what policy we should have in this province with regard to outside contractors. Now, I have reviewed the policy that they have in Quebec and other provinces and I don't think we want to get into narrow discrimination where we allow only contractors from the province of British Columbia to bid on British Columbia work, because we have people — maybe our road contractors and our construction firms, whether they be building buildings or highways, and certainly a lot of our technical people — who bid on work in the province of Alberta. I realize that the member would like to make a little political hay out of an Alberta company coming into the province of British Columbia…

MR. LAUK: You said it. He didn't.

MR. KEMPF: A B.C. company driven out after three and a half years of socialism.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: …but it's not in the northeast, it's in the southeast, and it's over the Kiskatinaw River. It's a bridge that should have been built years ago, as soon as the design was finished. It should have been started by your government because that is the main artery to the north, the main artery into the oil fields, the main artery at the present time into that great road we're going to build into the Mackenzie delta.

We won't be political in our talk this evening, but we put our contracts in the province of British Columbia. Now, what percentage difference should we allow and where should we draw the line? We have the same problem and we must come to grips with it, even with the purchasing of materials and supplies by the government, particularly by the Crown corporations, particularly by B.C. Hydro, and it's a problem. Are you going to keep a narrow, protectionist policy for contractors in British Columbia, regardless of what the percentage difference is? I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that yes, indeed, you have touched on a problem that we have to come to grips with.

In the province of Quebec they have just recently come up with a new policy and they figure it's going to gain somewhere in the vicinity of $300 million to $400 million a year for the province. They're not going to work on a difference of contract; they're going to specify Quebec content, and maybe that's the road we should go — I don't know. As I say, we do have to come to grips with it and it's more far-ranging, the problem has more ramifications, than just people bidding on road contracts.

Certainly I presume in this one, although I haven't got the details of what the Alberta bid was versus what the bids were for B.C. firms, we should have a policy of what percentage difference in the contract we're going to allow, because when the highways are all built in British Columbia and our contractors want to go into another province or into the Yukon or, indeed, into the Northwest Territories, are they going to be precluded from bidding on those? I know, in my area particularly, a lot of construction firms are doing work up in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon and in Alaska and, yes, in Alberta.

So as I say, it's very well, Mr. Chairman, for the member to try and make some political hay out of this, but you have touched on a problem which we should come to grips with. We do have to have a policy.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I asked a very simple question and didn't receive a very satisfactory answer, but seeing as the minister brought up the point of politics, let's talk about the road that he was talking about this afternoon in terms of economic development. That's the road up through the Northwest Territories to take care of the Mackenzie Valley — a road that is desirable, in my opinion, for the economic development of this province. I don't think it would have that great an impact — not as great an impact as some people from the northeastern part of the province feel it would have — but I think it would have some impact.

I think the minister should go back in his history just a bit, because I went to Ottawa when I was a minister to talk with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development — at that time Mr. Chretien — and asked him what the federal time schedule was to be. When would they do their part of the road from the Northwest Territories to the British Columbia border? He said that they had been prepared to be there. They had allocated money to build that road, but under the days of the former Social Credit government, he said, they couldn't get anywhere. They couldn't even talk to former Premier W.A.C. Bennett. They got so disgusted with the delay on British Columbia's part that they pulled the money out and shoved it up onto the Mackenzie road. When I told him that we in this province would be willing to meet a time schedule — that any time they would end up at the border we would be at the border on our side — he asked me to give them a year so that they could redirect their money. It would take them at least a year to pull the money back out of the Mackenzie road and allocate that money for the highway coming down from Fort Simpson to join us.

The federal minister informed me that the road

[ Page 739 ]

would have been in place a long time ago if it hadn't have been for the attitude of the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett in dealing with the federal government and trying to play them off, one project against another.

Now, the offer that I made to the federal government, I would imagine, is the same offer that probably stands for the new government. What I said is that we would be at the border any time the federal government would give us a time schedule, and that we would meet that time schedule. I haven't heard that this new government said they wouldn't do that also. So talking about political jiggery-pokery, I'm sure that that minister knows that it's the federal government that aren't doing their part to get that road down, but at the same time, the federal government did have the money in there and was ready to go when the previous Social Credit government just completely took the negotiations out of the hands of the people who had been negotiating — for political reasons by the Premier's office. That is what the Hon. Jean Chretien told me when I was in Ottawa.

Now, getting back to the other question of which contractor should be awarded jobs, earlier today the minister, in describing the economy in British Columbia, said that we were in the midst of a depression — and he used the word "depression," not recession. Depression is the way the minister described our present economy. Here we are in what the minister calls a depression. Under contracts that are let by government, they have an option of taking the low bidder or not taking the low bidder. Now, as the minister is not aware — I'm not aware — of the difference between the low contractor, if indeed it was North American Road Ltd., of Edmonton…. I don't know whether that was the low contractor. All I know is they got the contract. But if there had been a British Columbia firm anywhere near this contract price, then I believe that contract should have been awarded to a British Columbia firm. There's no doubt about that.

This is nothing more, Mr. Chairman, than another example of the short-sightedness of this government surrounding economic policy. They'll take one specific entity and make an economic decision surrounding that, and then they stand back in utter amazement when it spills over and has ramifications into other sections of the economy — like the ferry rates. They looked at the ferries and they said: "My, they've been losing money. Put up the fares." A few weeks later everybody said: "You've killed the tourist industry." They said: "Killed the tourist industry? Grace, hire somebody to get conventions here." You know, every time they take an action, they don't seem to understand that it has ramifications in other sectors of the economy.

It just seems to me to make sense, during this time of depression — brought around by the taxation policies of the government that helped create this depression we're in — that they could at least award their contracts to a British Columbia firm and make sure that the jobs go to British Columbians. They have that option. They don't have to award it to the low bidder. Make sure that the jobs are British Columbian and make sure that the company is British Columbian.

Now, in terms of long-range policies in dealing with contracts, I agree with the minister. It's a problem, and it's not an easy solution. But it just seems to me that when we're facing the kind of unemployment that we're facing in this province; when the construction industry is in the condition that they're in; when the small businessmen in this province, probably in your riding…. If those people were British Columbians they'd be more apt to spend their money in British Columbia, even if they're on the job, because they'll go home to Alberta on the weekends.

The minister doesn't make any sense, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman. To go up there — he and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) — and actually brag about letting a contract to an Alberta firm that is not going to hire British Columbians, and then to stand up and say I'm trying to make politics out of it is more than I can understand.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With regard to the Liard Highway, as I say, I don't wish to criticize that member who just spoke because there doesn't seem to be too much money in the kitty to build highways, and that was part of their economic philosophy. However, the Liard Highway was under construction and it was stopped in 1972. There wasn't a wheel turned from '72 until this fall. I wrote the Minister of Northern Development and I have the same commitment — he will meet our time frame.

MR. LEA: It's the same one we….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you had one you didn't do much with it because, as I say, you stopped the construction. And you can't not admit that, because you did.

Now one thing the member doesn't seem to understand is that probably the reason the British Columbia bids were maybe higher than those of Alberta is because of the great road construction programme we have going on in British Columbia. Most of the contractors are busy because of our great highway programme.

MR. LEA: Didn't you get any other bids?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So I think you should take that into consideration — the fact that maybe there

[ Page 740 ]

weren't any B.C. bids on it. I don't know; I'll find out exactly what the bid was. But I want to tell you that the road contractors in British Columbia today are happy because they are gainfully employed building roads for British Columbians.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit amazed to hear that minister speak with calm reason, appealing to the jury of this House to give him some time to deal with this difficult problem.

He said that we should have a policy. For 14 months you've been in government. You went around this province promising jobs. When you were in opposition before you were minister, you called that member names; you called the government down; you screamed "socialism!" Every second word was nonsense, gobbledegook and garbage. You wasted more time in this House than any member in the most irresponsible opposition. And now you're a minister. Fourteen months!

That member stands up tonight and exposes you of having given a contract to an Alberta firm of non-union workers who will go back to Alberta and spend their money in Alberta stores, and then you come in here and wring your hands and say: "We'll have to come up with a policy." You go to a public meeting up north and explain that to communities that have 15 and 20 per cent unemployment as a direct result of your economic policies.

Don't you read the paper anymore? There are 889,000 looking for work! And 112,000 unemployed in British Columbia. You're collecting taxes from British Columbians. You're making British Columbian companies pay corporation taxes. You're charging more in income tax. You charge a 7 per cent sales tax while Alberta charges none, and then you say they can bid cheaper. Who made it possible for them to bid cheaper? That government's policies drove the competitive aspects of the small contractor out of British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Shh! Shh!

MR. BARRETT: "Shh," he says. If I could get any more angry at the minister I certainly would, remembering night after night the calumnious statements made by that minister against the former government — reading through some of his non-quotes in Hansard, his wild statements. Now he's exposed in this House, and laughing in this House, about the fact that Alberta workers are flooding into British Columbia on government contracts. He pleads with this House by saying: "We've got to work out a policy. We've got a problem. I need some help." You had all the answers. You campaigned in this province. You've driven unemployment up to 112,000. Then you come in tonight after a good, comfortable supper down here in comfortable Victoria and you haven't got a single, positive word to offer the people of this province in terms of unemployment.

Do you remember your speeches, how you attacked the steel mill, how you attacked the oil refinery, how you said we were driving people out of this province? Who is it that's leaving B.C. now to get jobs out of British Columbia? Ordinary young people who have been driven out of this province by Social Credit policies. "We don't have a policy. We need your help. This is a difficult problem." Nothing was difficult when you said anything that came to your mind when you were in opposition.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): What mind?

MR. BARRETT: What mind? No, no, no, my dear friends, he has a mind. He has skills. He has abilities. But none of them have been attributed to providing one job in this province.

I remember very clearly one night when he stood up in this House after about an hour of nonsense, standing up and saying "I'll give the minister 30 minutes." That was kind of him. It was tough for anybody to get one minute out of him in those days. "I'll give the minister 30 minutes to stand up in this House and catalogue the jobs that he's brought to British Columbia." Don't you remember that? Is your memory that dry, through you, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be bitter.

MR. BARRETT: Bitter? I'm here; we're witness to this. The people who should be bitter are the thousands of people in this province who voted for that group over there, thinking that something was going to be done for them. You come into this House and wring your hands and say: "We have to hire non-union labour." Alberta workers drive over the border and take B.C. taxpayers' money to go and buy stuff in Alberta stores, pay their rents in Alberta and buy their clothing in Alberta while the stores in your own constituency go broke.

Have you no care, Mr. Member? It's an incredible performance to stand up here and say: "We have no policy." We know that; we know you've got no policy. But this member brings to the attention of this House a scandalous situation where a contract has been let involving the construction of a highway, a direct government decision in the economy. We find that the contract has been let to an Alberta contractor hiring Alberta workers.

I'll tell you who would have a tough job explaining it. I'll tell you that if it was in the Columbia River constituency, you'd be in trouble.

MR. LEA: Or Skeena.

[ Page 741 ]

MR. BARRETT: Or Skeena, or Omineca.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage!

MR. BARRETT: Garbage, my friend? You are an expert on that word. It was you and your group that catalogued story after story throughout this province saying that you were going to do a better job, and you certainly have. You've done a better job for the Alberta workers tonight.

Oh, the speeches! Oh, how a little mantle of office changes the attitude and the approach! When that member comes in tonight and exposes your policy as giving jobs to Albertans, what do you do? I've never seen you, through you, Mr. Chairman, so timid, so reticent, so humble, so passive, so conciliatory, so listening, so kind! It's an incredible performance from a member who used to stand in his place and had every answer for every problem. Tonight he stands up and says: "Well, we have to hire Alberta workers."

Alberta workers don't pay 7 per cent; Alberta workers haven't had their income tax boosted by four points; Alberta workers don't have to pay the huge ferry rates to come and visit their parents; Alberta workers don't give a fig about leaving a dime in British Columbia. Yet you stand there and wring your hands and say: "We don't have a policy." If you don't have a policy, through you, Mr. Chairman, then quit.

After 14 months there is mounting unemployment. There was an announcement through a special Thanksgiving television performance by the Premier that a major thrust to get jobs in British Columbia was a $40 million highways programme. Now we learn tonight that part of that programme is going to provide jobs for Albertans.

Then you announce to us that the B.C. contractors are so busy they can't bid for the job. I'm sure that the British Columbia Construction Association will be happy to hear that the very complaints by their members that there's not enough capital spending in British Columbia in the public and private sector have been solved tonight by the minister announcing that they're really too busy at work. All 112,000 unemployed — an 800-a-day increase in the last month — haven't had the news that these jobs are all available.

Since the last unemployment statistics came out in this province, we've had a throne speech, a budget speech and 800 more jobs lost a day under Social Credit. Tonight, when we find that jobs have been given to Albertans by a government fumbling and shovelling money out of the back of a truck on B.C. Rail settlements out of court, that minister is on the board saying that they cannot afford to pay a British Columbia worker and they have a problem settling out of court over $1 million last December without telling anyone.

Then it quietly comes out in the Vancouver Province this morning that we don't have enough money to pay the poor British Columbia worker, so we'll pay him welfare from Smiley back there, who'll beat him over the head with a shovel while he looks for jobs. How ironic! How cynical! But it's a bit much to have to sit here and listen to that minister say…. Why, I wrote his words down. He said: "We should have a policy." That's what the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was telling you two weeks ago: "What's your policy? Where are you going? Where are the jobs?" I challenge you to go to your home constituency and call a meeting and explain to them why you've given the jobs to the Albertans. It's embarrassing to the Speaker's constituency as well.

MR. LAUK: That's why he's not here.

MR. BARRETT: Jobs to Albertans! Money that won't be spent in this province! Have you not calculated how much you would get returned? Is the creative formula not simple? Measure the 7 per cent sales tax on that money that would be spent here; measure the income tax that would come back here; measure the corporation tax that would come from the company building the job. Doesn't that give you a leeway of at least a minimum of 15 per cent? Is there not some other percentage figure that you can give in terms of providing some security of tenure to those people?

We have a problem. It is bottom-line mentality that is self-destructive. You have driven business out of this province. You've made a mockery of any sense of logical, rational development of an economic pattern. I read your very speeches in Hansard against him when he was a minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, in your new suit, and I'm shocked.

After all of that, all you can offer us, when that member exposes the misery, the hollowness, the lack of any commitment to British Columbia, is to stand up here and wring your hands and say: "We have to have a policy." Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as usual the one-time Premier started twisting things around again. Do we want to have those construction firms in British Columbia who bid for jobs elsewhere, as I stated, discriminated against? Oh, but that doesn't matter to the one-time Premier because he has a great habit of standing up and twisting things around and applying the emotions. Oh! Making a great speech! The buffoonery in this government is gone! We're dealing with facts and we have long-range policies, Mr. ex-Premier, and you can stand here and you can apply the emotions; you can put on the performance.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the long-range policies?

[ Page 742 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, you'll be eating those words in a year. Here's the man who talks about business going to Alberta. For three years I pleaded with that government over there to build a road into the Grizzly Valley so that millions and millions of dollars in resource development would go to the province of British Columbia. It cost $750,000 to build that road in there so that British Columbians could have access to their own natural resources. And there's that ex-Minister of Finance, as bad as he was, standing up here and preaching to a government who has restored fiscal responsibility to the province of British Columbia, and putting on an emotional act.

MR. BARRETT: No jobs for British Columbians.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's the same man who made a speech — I believe it was sometime in early December — down in Halifax.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yeah!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yeah! He said to the social workers: "Grab power! That's where the government is!"

MR. BARRETT: Right!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He said: "The Social Credit government will not spend any money to develop resources and things are getting worse in the province." And what did he say? Here's a man who was once Premier of this province, who is supposed to be a responsible Leader of the Opposition. And what did that man say?

MR. BARRETT: Oh! Let's hear it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: "Things are tough in British Columbia, and I'm loving every minute of it!" Was he speaking for those unemployed workers? Was he speaking for those people that he's crying about tonight with emotion to the great press gallery? Was he speaking for them when he said: "Things are getting worse in British Columbia, and I'm enjoying every minute of it!"? I ask you! And he stands up here and piously appeals to the emotions of people. I want to tell you, those unemployed workers in British Columbia know that he enjoys their plight.

MR. BARRETT: They'll stay unemployed under you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes! He enjoys their plight. That's the same man, Mr. Chairman, who when Premier of this province killed the mining industry.

MR. BARRETT: Texada is closing down.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said, Mr. Chairman, our long-term projects are meant for the overall good. And we are developing…

MR. BARRETT: Alberta jobs for Alberta workers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: …and we are making progress.

MR. BARRETT: B.C. jobs for Alberta workers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have to reiterate to the House tonight that all of the economists in the province and those who know about the investment climate have said that British Columbia is the one bright spot in the Canadian economy.

MR. BARRETT: B.C. jobs for Alberta workers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't have to say that during the year 1976 British Columbia created more jobs per population than any province….

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Nonsense? The member says "Nonsense."

MR. COCKE: That's right. Nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Employment created per thousand population in B.C. in the year 1976 was 16 jobs per thousand of population — better than all provinces in Canada, save Saskatchewan and Alberta, and better than all other provinces in Canada in the year 1976.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Are we really better than Newfoundland?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I stated, all the ministries are working together. And what has happened in the mining industry?

MR. BARRETT: Texada is closing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What has happened in the mining industry?

MR. BARRETT: It's Chabot's fault.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Actual exploration expenditures in British Columbia during 1976, as estimated by the Chamber of Mines at year-end, were 47 per cent higher than those forecast following a survey of intended spending last spring.

[ Page 743 ]

MR. LAUK: How many new mines?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why, Mr. Chairman? Because of the great policies of this government.

MR. LAUK: What about mineral production?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: While our spring survey indicated that $10.2 million would be spent on coal exploration in the province, at year-end the survey of actual expenditures revealed these expenditures had increased to $15 million.

MR. LAUK: How many new jobs?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know, I remember standing in this House when you were putting through their killing mining legislation and telling them what would happen. What has happened now? Exploration in mining went to the Yukon Territory. And they said: "Oh, it was the world situation." The world situation in the mining industry hasn't changed that much, but mining activity has returned to the province of British Columbia and it's down in the Yukon — exactly what the now Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and I used to tell that group over there when they were government.

The extent to which British Columbia coals are thought to be marketable and the effort focused on their development have been confirmed by several recent announcements. Mr. Chairman, they have the audacity to stand in this Legislature and tell me that the investment world doesn't have any confidence in the Ministry of Economic Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you've been making the recent announcements. He's going to announce this new penalty.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not going to continue on. We'll let them, you know….

MR. BARRETT: B.C. jobs for Alberta workers.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, there we go again. Our Highways ministry, by opening up the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, by building the Liard Highway, by putting a bridge into the great Alaska Highway, that was built by the Americans to give to the Canadians, by putting roads into resources, is providing work for British Columbians.

AN HON. MEMBER: For Albertans!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wouldn't want anybody on this side of the House to say that things were bad in British Columbia and that they were proud of it, and then stand up in the next breath and say how he's pleading for the poor workers of British Columbia. When he goes down to the Maritimes and says things are bad in British Columbia…. There's no work for the workers, is what he was really trying to tell them. People are unemployed, and there's the ex-social worker standing up and saying "and I'm proud of it."

MR. BARRETT: Give 'em welfare.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a shame, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not particularly interested in what the minister said when he was in opposition. I'm not particularly interested in what anybody said in any other province. What we're talking about is the fact that Albertans are going to be working in British Columbia when British Columbians are not. The job is taxpayers' money. They do have the power — it's not the case of defining or creating policy — within the Highway Act at this very moment to allow the government not to take a low bidder and to give it to the next highest bidder. As the second member for Vancouver East — the Leader of the Opposition — has pointed out, there would be other benefits flowing to British Columbia from that: the corporation tax, the income tax, the 7 per cent. I'm sure that if the minister were to put his staff to work on that, he'd probably find, in the long run, there would be more economic benefit to British Columbia by taking the next high British Columbia bid, when you take into consideration all those other economic factors that you have to apply when you're talking about letting out contracts.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what the minister doesn't seem to understand fully is that he is the minister…. Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, could I just wait a second until I get the minister's attention?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's gone right past his head.

MR. LEA: He made a statement that I would like to comment on.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm listening.

MR. LEA: Okay, you're listening.

You stood in this House this evening, Mr. Minister, and said that the road construction industry is working at maximum output and that the road builders in this province — the construction firms that deal in road building — have all the work they can

[ Page 744 ]

handle, and in all probability that is the reason an Albertan firm underbid the British Columbia bidders, if, indeed, there were any.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The minister stands up and says maybe that's the case. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development: Has he met with the B.C. Road Builders Association? Does he know how many millions of dollars that association, through their membership, can handle in one year? Is it $100 million that those construction firms can handle? Is it $200 million?

Is he trying to tell me that all the road builders who are members of the B.C. Road Builders Association are now working, and that the employees of the Road Builders Association are working? I would like to ask the minister what percentage of the road-building construction contractors are working. How much money can be handled in one year through all of the road builders? Are they working now? How much work is laid on for the summer? How much of the $170 million for capital expenditure in the highways budget is for day labour? How much will be let to contract to private firms?

Don't tell me to ask the Minister of Highways. Mr. Chairman, he is the person who stuck his neck out in this House to defend the policy, and tried to make this House believe that he knows something about the construction industry in this province. Now I am calling for the answers. Did he just get up and blow, or does he actually know something about the roadbuilders in this province? Are they working, or aren't they working?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly they are working.

MR. LEA: They're working? What percentage of the Road Builders Association members is working? What percentage — one-half, three-quarters, one-quarter? How many dollars a year can they handle? You've said that that is the excuse of government to let the contracts go to Alberta firms as opposed to British Columbia firms: "Maybe all the B.C. firms in the business are working."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LEA: It's a weak defence, but you've got to answer for that, Mr. Minister. You just can't get up and say that.

Now, one other point, Mr. Chairman, that the minister made was that he said: "Would we want the Yukon, Alberta, the state of Washington and other jurisdictions not allowing British Columbia contractors to go in and do work there?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh.

MR. LEA: It's not a case of what we want. We are legislators in the province of British Columbia; Mr. Chairman, they are the government of British Columbia. Nobody minds a bit of charity, but charity begins at home. When everybody is working here, when all our companies are gainfully employed, when all their employees are gainfully employed, then we can think about charity to our neighbouring provinces who do not have the same unemployment record as we have.

They didn't bring in a budget in the province of Alberta that has gone out of its way to make hardship for the handicapped, for the elderly, for all the people on fixed income. They didn't tax the workers more than they taxed the millionaires — no sales tax. Yet, you see, that's the philosophy, Mr. Chairman, of that government — that money knows no boundaries, that money is money. If it's an American buck it doesn't matter. Money is money.

MR. BARRETT: Ask the widow!

MR. LEA: Yes, widows know what kind of dollars they can expect not to have in this province.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): What did you just say about charity?

MR. LEA: I said charity begins at home.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think about it.

MR. LEA: I am thinking about it. I've thought about it a long time. What made me think about it was the first day you were elected — that started me thinking about it.

MR. KEMPF: How come you didn't think about it for three and a half years?

MR. LEA: Oh! Mr. Chairman, there is the hon. member for Omineca, whom I will meet any day of the week that he chooses to debate the question of whether or not that government….

MR. KEMPF: In my constituency?

MR. LEA: In your riding, yes!

MR. KEMPF: You're on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. LEA: Good! You name it, and I'll debate that subject of whether that should have gone to an Alberta contractor. Let's go up there and talk about

[ Page 745 ]

it, Mr. Member, any time.

MR. KEMPF: You're on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now back to vote 79.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind you and the House that I'm not going to forget that the member has accepted the challenge…

MR. BARRETT: Send it up to the Vanderhoof News.

MR. LEA: …in his riding, because I think he needs that advantage. I don't think you'll win, but you need that kind of advantage.

Then, after we've done that, maybe the Minister of Economic Development would care to meet me at the Road Builders Association, have a talk with them and see how they feel about Alberta contractors coming into this province, and whether or not the Road Builders Association of British Columbia might just not think, during this time of depression, according to the minister, that it might be a good policy for the province to have charity at home first, and then worry about our brothers and sisters in the province of Alberta.

If we have a cup that's overflowing, Mr. Chairman, with economic development, then of course, let's share. But with 112,000 people out of work, and the meagre jobs that that government is supplying by direct employment or direct contracts that cause direct employment to go outside of the province…. You can stand up and say: "We haven't got a policy. We should have a policy." I'm telling you that it's within the jurisdiction of that government not to let that contract go to the low bidder, but to go to the next lowest British Columbia bidder — the next one.

I'll meet in your riding, and if you want I'll go with you to the Road Builders Association. We'll have a talk, and see what they think about your statement and whether they're all working.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised at the tack the opposition is taking there tonight, particularly the member for Prince Rupert.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should know better — he's from the north.

MR. LLOYD: He seems to have an extremely short memory, Mr. Chairman. I wonder where he thinks Miller Construction comes from. Is that a British Columbia company? In the entire three years they were in government, the only stretch of road that the pothole expert let a contract on in our part of the country went to Miller Construction. They are not a British Columbia company by any means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. LLOYD: He started the big tirade by saying he was concerned about local employment. Well, that government made sure that there wasn't any local employment with their Public Works Fair Employment Act. They made sure there wasn't any local employment. All the people were hired out of union halls in Vancouver. They couldn't get a job because of big government being the No. 1 organizer in the province. The Labour minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) fixed that up last year so that local people can bid on their own contracts in their own area.

Interjections.

MR. LLOYD: He mentioned how many contractors were working in the province — road-building contractors. Because of the realistic programme that was started this last year they are all working in our area. It's certainly a change from what it had been.

I just want to clarify the record there: Miller Construction isn't really a British Columbia company.

MR. BARRETT: Do they hire B.C. workers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. LAUK: Followed by whom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Followed by the member for Skeena.

MR. LEVI: Well, we've had the minister speak and then we had the first Minister of Defence from Prince George. Now we're going to get somebody from Skeena. Mark you, he's the only one on that side, Mr. Chairman, who makes any sense. At least he's got the sense to know that they don't have any policy, and I hope he gets up and says to them: "When are you going to have a policy?"

You know, this minister has voluminous references in Hansard, but on May 6 last year, when he was in the debate on his estimates, he said: "Yes, we're going to move. We're going to have to make submissions" — this is the economic policy that he was trying to lay out that day — "to the Economic Council of Canada." That's what he was going to do. Have you done that, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman? Have you made submissions to the Economic Council of Canada?

We're going to have to point this out to them, even though it's been pointed out already. We've got to get back and realize that industry has to make a profit if

[ Page 746 ]

it's going to have the money to provide the new technology and to provide the jobs but, first of all, we must establish a policy whether we want growth.

I hope you've made a decision about that in the past 14 months. That policy has been kicked around for the last three or four years, whether we're going to have growth or no growth. The minister hasn't made a commitment, but I presume we're going to have growth.

So 14 months ago he said: "We haven't quite got the policy but we're going to work on it." Yesterday he spoke in the House and said that they were just coming to grips with the policy. What was interesting was that that minister, when he was just a candidate in the last election, took out a newspaper ad in the Dawson Creek News, Wednesday, December 10. It was a big ad — must have cost about $8,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: "MLA for sale."

MR. LEVI: It says here: "One of Canada's richest provinces has over 100,000 unemployed." Then there's a big statement: "Guess which one?" Then he says:

"British Columbia, God's country, filled with forests, minerals, lakes, resources, and thousands of unemployed people — people who want to work, would work, but can't find jobs. Raw materials from primary industries leave our province daily creating thousands of jobs in foreign countries. Many of those secondary industries could be developed right here in British Columbia" — this is 15 months ago he was saying this — "and create a lot of new jobs for our own people. But the government doesn't seem interested in doing anything about that.

"It's time somebody did something about it" — he goes on to say in the ad — "and took a long, hard look at the problem and came up with strong, realistic answers, and did it fast, because unemployment has reached the crisis point. Bill Bennett and the Socreds believe that everyone who wants to work should work. A job is not a privilege but a right, and one that every British Columbian should enjoy, because it's pretty hard to appreciate all those mountains, lakes and oceans when you're worried about not having a pay-cheque."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: B.C. jobs for Alberta workers.

MR. LEVI: Then he says: "Can we afford the Barrett way? For a new look and anew way to work together, vote Social Credit, Don Phillips (X)."

At the beginning of the article, he says: "One of Canada's richest provinces has over 100,000 unemployed." Well, now you can take the ad out again, Mr. Member, and you can say that one of Canada's richest provinces has over 112,000 unemployed, and you won't have to put on it: "Guess who?"

You know, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was asking you whether you will go back to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and find out from him whether any B.C. companies bid on the contract for that road. Well, while you're doing that, I would like you to ask that same minister whether any contractors bid on an $800,000 bridge job that has gone to a firm in Alberta. I'm not talking about a highway now, a road; I'm talking about a bridge. So when you go back you let us know, when you bring the information back, whether another job hasn't gone to Alberta, because that seems to be the pattern with this government.

MR. BARRETT: B.C. jobs for Alberta workers.

MR. LEVI: The same member was a great advertisement writer. He says, again on December 10: "British Columbia's strong leadership: we lead in high taxes, foreign loans, unemployment, business failures, government bureaucracy and losses in Crown corporations." Now, he's right about the high taxes. He's right about the foreign loans — we just had a big one from B.C. Hydro. He's right about unemployment. He's certainly right about business failures this year, and he's certainly right about the bureaucracy.

But he's certainly not right about losses in Crown corporations, because even the Minister of Finance and the Premier, Mr. Chairman, love to talk about those millions of dollars that are made by the Crown corporations, such as Can-Cel and Ocean Falls.

And he goes on. He talks about the kind of thing that they were going to do if they got elected. You know, it's unfortunate. It's unfortunate for the people in the galleries and for the people in the riding. We're going to have now, I hope, a debate between the member for Prince Rupert and the member for Omineca. You know, that should be a very interesting debate. Last week, that member spoke in the debate or the week before and he talked about a new mine that was being started in his riding. Today, in the paper, they're not so optimistic about the new mine — something wrong with the metal prices in the world, so it looks like it's not going to come off. Now, if that kind of thing would happen when the NDP government would have been in, that would have been a direct result of government policy, because the metal market is down. But now? Nobody talks about that kind of problem now because that's a world problem.

But one of the things that I can't understand

[ Page 747 ]

about this minister is in his speech yesterday. He seemed to put a great deal of stress on having a committee in his department monitor the GATT discussions. I would like to know what that minister has a committee in his department to look at the GATT discussions for? Is B.C. represented at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade discussion? Do we have a seat there? Are we represented? Can we have, any impact? Is this the full substance of his economic effort? He's going to have a committee studying the GATT agreement? What is he talking about?

You know, he hasn't really dealt with one single policy. He's got these wonderful ideas about — it's long-range, it's big, it's beautiful. Sometimes you wonder whether he's describing a monument or a bridge, or whether he's describing a pile of potatoes or, as the member for Omineca is often fond of saying, whether he's describing a pile of garbage. He hasn't specified at all. In answer to the member for Prince Rupert about the people who are getting jobs in Alberta, he said he's going to find out if anybody in the province in the road-making industry really applied. Well, we will have to find that out. We'll have to see whether in fact the road-making industry is as happy as the minister says it is. I don't think he would have said it if the Minister of Highways would have been in the House. That's probably why he did say it, because he is not here. But make sure, Mr. Minister, when you go to speak to the Minister of Highways, you find out about that bridge, that $800,000 contract that's been let to an Alberta firm. Let's find out whether it is, in fact, another job and more money going to Alberta, less work that's going to happen here. I don't hear him, for instance, talking about a plea to the Canadians, particularly in his area. When I was up there, one of the biggest complaints from his area was in relation to people going over to Alberta to buy food, Mr. Chairman. That's what was happening over there. They were going into Grand Prairie because it was cheaper to buy things and they wouldn't be affected by 7 per cent. He hasn't talked about that.

He's just told us about some nebulous kinds of plans that he has. I wonder whether he is going to take out any more ads in the newspaper up there to tell the people what kind of a future they can look forward to. Can he really tell them anything? We've been waiting here now for two days for that minister to come out and tell us. Even if he only tells us about the coal agreement. When he made the statement this afternoon he wasn't sure whether we're going to send coal to Japan or whether we're going to get coal from Japan. Well, what is going to happen?

What is actually going to happen with the coal agreement? Or is that all dependent on what happens with the Premier down there over the next two days? Is it all dependent on what the Premier comes back with? Have you actually got agreement? Have you got the Japanese to accept five million tons of coal? Is that a guarantee? You came back from Japan and you made no announcement. You announced that the steel mill was on but you didn't tell us how much coal you were able to sell to them.

MR. LEA: You made the announcement in Ottawa.

MR. LEVI: You haven't told us anything. You know, he hasn't changed one bit from when he was on this side. Stand up, puff himself up, get his arms going…. What was it the member for Prince Rupert called him? A big, tough, up-country unit with the speedometer rolled back to zero. That's how he described him and he hasn't changed. Now that he's a minister you'd think that he would have a few miles on. But not him, he's going backwards all the time. A big, tough, up-country unit, and he's the Minister of Economic Development. It's just impossible to sit opposite that man and listen to the way he talks. He opens his mouth, his ears lift up and his tongue flaps, and not one piece of common sense has come out of his mouth since we've gone into the estimates.

MR. COCKE: Not one answer.

MR. LEVI: Not one answer. He gave a prepared speech, written by his deputy yesterday, and he had trouble over the words with more than two syllables. But not one piece of common sense. He's given no indication to anybody that he understands at all what his portfolio is supposed to do. He is the living image of Waldo Skillings. He really is. He's not even as good-looking as Waldo Skillings, but he is about as effective as Waldo Skillings.

MR. KING: And he doesn't play bridge with the Premier.

MR. LEVI: No, he doesn't play bridge with the Premier. I wonder if he plays bridge with anybody. You know, he used to be up there with the van when they first became government. He was one of the big cheeses in that government. But he's kind of falling behind now; he's kind of limping to keep catching up with them. He's got a lot of problems.

Well, we've got a lot of problems here too. In this House, we're supposed to be able to find out from that minister what the policies are, and we haven't found out anything — absolutely nothing. I think that what we have to do is that we have to keep him there until such time as he starts coming around to some common sense.

MR. KING: We'll be here forever.

[ Page 748 ]

MR. LEVI: It's very likely, and even longer.

AN HON. MEMBER: July?

MR. LEVI: It may very well be that when the Premier comes back from Ottawa in a couple of days, and there's no infrastructure money, there's no go-ahead, that that minister's going to be expendable and they'll have to move him to the back benches. He'll be better off in the back benches, because then he won't have to be responsible to the cabinet. He'll just have to be responsible to the back bench.

So, Mr. Minister, again for the 55th time, will you stand up and tell us about one piece of policy that you've got in mind? It's no good talking to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), because he's a new one, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't know too much about agriculture, so there's no point in talking about it. His great gift, Mr. Chairman, to the people in agriculture is: "We're going to take away your farm income assurance."

AN HON. MEMBER: Sour grapes.

MR. LEVI: Sour grapes as well? Oh, that's his big contribution….

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on vote 79, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: We are on vote 79, Mr. Chairman. The difficulty is, we can't get anything out of the minister. It may very well be, because the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has come into the House, that he'll shape up and he'll tell us something.

Just before I sit down I want to say with all seriousness that when you report back to the House on that contract that was let, you'll let us know if there were any bidders from B.C. And also look into that contract of the bridge that has gone to an Alberta company. That's two we're looking at.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): We have certainly heard a lot of steam and, I must say, very few solutions in listening to the debate. I know the minister, during the year, will come forward with many new approaches. However, I realize your problem. No matter what you do, you'll certainly have more people trying to stop you doing it than you will have people trying to help you along. I would say, after listening yesterday and today, that the minister is receiving far more criticism than he deserves.

I would like to ask the minister a few questions. First of all, what can you tell us on the northwest rail agreement? How close are we to an agreement with the federal government? Second, what route will it take? Would it likely take the Terrace–Dease Lake route, which is the long route, or the short route from Hazelton to the BCR line, which is only half the distance?

My second question: where do we stand on the DREE agreement with Ottawa? Are we making any progress and will the northwest be considered for No. 1 priority when it is brought in?

MR. COCKE: Don't be nervous, Cyril.

MR. SHELFORD: There simply has to be massive government involvement at both levels to pull the area out of the present economic slump.

I would like to say just a few words on marketing. I think we should place far more emphasis than has been placed in the past on the importance of marketing in other countries. I was wondering why vote 81 — and I don't want to get involved in separate votes — has been cut from $900,000 down to $740,000 for market development, which is to help people that want to get out and sell Canadian products. This would appear to be an area that should be considered for increases next year.

Certainly my experience, when I visited various countries in 1971 from the USSR, Yugoslavia, Italy, Switzerland and Belgium, was that the trade commissioners in all of these areas were complaining because they had no contact whatsoever with government — any government, federal and provincial, and all provinces together. None of them were doing their job of telling our trade commissioners, which we pay for, what products we have for sale and the best way to go about it. I would say everyone I met was begging for information from back home on what we had to offer.

I was only in Yugoslavia one day and three companies came forward to ask where they could buy pulp and paper in Canada. Of course, at that time it was so easy to sell pulp and paper no one was interested. I remember reporting to this House when I came back that someday we'd be very sorry that we wouldn't sit up and take note where they were wanting a small order, because later on it might become a large order.

MR. LEA: Were you in government?

MR. SHELFORD: Yes.

MR. LEA: Were you in the cabinet?

MR. SHELFORD: Well, you know.

MR. LEA: I know I know. I just wondered if you knew.

MR. SHELFORD: Of course, days were good then, you know. In those days things were going well.

[ Page 749 ]

From that one contract of that one trip — and I certainly don't criticize cabinet ministers for travelling, because I think they should travel — we sold large amounts of dairy cattle to many countries. They came to realize that the dairy cattle from Canada were among the top in the whole world. The largest dairy farm in the world is in Yugoslavia. It has 28,000 head of cattle, plus several thousand summer homes down on the Adriatic. But over half of 18,000 dairy cattle outside of Belgrade are Canadian, mostly British Columbian. I think we should be very proud of this.

Now, I found the same sort of thing in every country but I really think that the Canadian, generally, is a fat-cat salesman. We haven't been hungry enough to get out and sell like we should because there have been so many easy sales over the last number of years.

Now we have lots of other problems that have been mentioned here this evening that I would just like to touch on. I'm cheating. I have a letter from one of my constituents. I might point out that he is a union member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Has he got a job?

MR. SHELFORD: No.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: You're glad he hasn't got a job? I'm not. You may be happy but I'm not.

This is what he tells me:

"I understood from the news announcement that local people would be hired. But when I went to Dawson Construction to apply, I was told that I had to go through the teamsters' dispatcher in Vancouver. When I phoned the dispatcher I was told that I was on the bottom of the list, and that it was very unlikely that any local people would be hired for these jobs.

"I live in Terrace. My home and family are here but I couldn't get a job here even when the government lets out contracts in our area. Why should a man from Vancouver have a better chance to get a job than I do? If the government is serious about trying to help the north they should be doing something about projects such as this so that local people could work on the project."

Now, I agree with this, and I am quite sure all members in the government agree too. But there are a few little catches. First of all, I will point out that this fellow was one of a number of contractors who went broke working for Can-Cel in 1974. He lost his truck, he lost his home and now he's on welfare.

MR. KEMPF: Where were those people over there?

MR. LEA: I'll see you in your riding!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.

MR. SHELFORD: Unfortunately, 40 contractors left Terrace in 1974, so I don't think we should just point a finger at the present minister. I would say all of us are caught in a web of government bureaucracy, union bureaucracy and company bureaucracy. I think we should all try to give the minister some help because, believe me, the minister and every one else in government today need plenty of help.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: We hear criticism of the B.C. Railway on how much it lost. I believe we heard from the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano, (Mr. Gibson). My question would be: what else could it do but lose money when it was closed down or slowed down for over six months in a year? The cattle ranchers throughout my district gave up using this railway over three years ago because they couldn't rely on it.

MR. LEA: I know. It doesn't run through your riding.

MR. SHELFORD: Wrong again!

MR. LEA: The BCR runs through your riding?

MR. SHELFORD: No. But in case you haven't the intelligence to look at a map, you'll find that the ranchers in my area ship to Prince George and then via B.C. Railway to Vancouver. Now they ship to Edmonton. This is what I was talking about in my last speech when I said Edmonton is becoming more and more the base for development in the northern part of British Columbia, which I don't like. You may like it, but I don't.

MR. LEA: You don't know why they go to Edmonton, eh?

MR. SHELFORD: I would say that we have heard criticism from practically every member in this House but, unfortunately, we haven't heard many answers. We didn't have any answers from the former Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lauk). I must say I felt sorry for him during those days because every time he turned around, things such as the steel mill, which I think he sincerely tried to bring in, were scuttled by a group of people who didn't want to see them built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

[ Page 750 ]

MR. SHELFORD: At Kitimat.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was scuttled by this minister right over here.

MR. SHELFORD: It was scuttled long before that minister came in, and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SHELFORD: So far the present government hasn't found solutions either. All of the non-confidence motions in the world will not bring ideas. So far I haven't heard many ideas. I just hope there are some that will come out in the next few hours.

During this year, the government, as I said before, must develop and lay out clearly their industrial development programme. I think this is very important because the people in my area are waiting for leadership in this field. The people have faith in the minister and the government, but I would say we can't afford to leave it any longer to indicate the direction the government intends to take this province in the next three or four years.

Possibly there isn't any solution. I hope there is, but I haven't heard one. I haven't even heard anyone come close to a solution. With high costs, high wages and low productivity, along with six or seven groups trying to stop every project before it's started, it certainly does make it extremely difficult to develop in British Columbia. My question would be: is there a solution? If there isn't a solution, then we certainly should tell the people clearly that either we have to change our ways or face higher unemployment and less benefits.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Change our government.

MR. SHELFORD: Unfortunately, changing government doesn't make any difference once you get to a pinnacle of high costs.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SHELFORD: I'm talking of trying to find solutions. You can put blame on whoever you like. You can blame me, if you like, but we won't find a solution by blaming other people.

I was talking to a company yesterday from Terrace that was telling me they're trying to develop in that community. Their average wage is $9.02. They have a plant in the southern U.S. where the base rate for union workers down there is $5.85. Now, this is the type of a problem we face in British Columbia. Let's not kid ourselves. It's all very well to stand up and say, "Let's bring in secondary industry," and damn the minister if he doesn't bring in secondary industry. This has been done for three or four years, but it hasn't brought anything into British Columbia. Even the NDP mayor of Terrace quite properly points out that lots of people talk about industrial development, secondary industry, but he claims: "Show me one industry that could develop in Terrace with our high costs." Now, this is the problem. I think it's very clear.

How are we going to face up to it? Are you in favour, for instance, of all local people working on a job regardless of union membership? You'd better answer that, too, when you debate with my friend from Omineca. That's what they'll want to hear. If you're not willing to go that far, of course, then the thing is that all workers will be brought up from Vancouver if they happen to be on seniority list. It's a serious problem, and I certainly don't particularly blame the unions who try and get their senior men working. As far as I'm concerned, I'm certainly willing to go on record and say that I'm in favour of hiring all local people first, even if it requires day labour projects and more supervision by the Department of Highways.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's questions with regard to the northwest rail agreement — it's still under negotiation. With regard to the route, in the present agreement, I don't anticipate that any route will be built immediately. It's left open and you could have a route north from either Hazelton or Terrace or Stewart. I'm sorry I can't give you any more definite information than that.

With regard to selling abroad, as you know, the department does have a plan of market development assistance. We provide all of the federal agencies in the other countries with all the latest information. With regard to inquiries, that information would be available through the federal department of trade and industry, and it's provided to all our trade commissioners overseas. Basically we have very good cooperation with them.

The provincial government is in the throes of appointing a senior representative in Europe, and he will help us with our European economic committee trade agreement for British Columbia. He will help us to facilitate investments, financing and joint ventures with B.C. firms. He will also assist us to monitor the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and he will assist us in co-ordinating B.C. interests with trade commissioners in Europe.

We realize that a lot of the inquiries from the European Common Market — which are sent to the industry and trade offices in Europe — are really not coming to British Columbia; they're going to other provinces. We want to rectify this, and this is one of

[ Page 751 ]

the reasons that we're making this very positive move in this direction.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I was rather intrigued by some of the advice that the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) had for the House and for the minister. He suggested that he is not opposed to ministers travelling, and I don't know whether the Minister of Economic Development is becoming an embarrassment to that side of the House and that's a gentle hint that perhaps he should take an extended trip somewhere.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): One way.

MR. KING: Perhaps that's one method of getting the province moving again and coming to grips with unemployment.

MR. LEA: Go to Ottawa and get those 30 days back.

MR. KING: The member for Skeena said he had heard no solutions in the House. Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the member for Skeena that the government was elected in December, 1975, on their assurance to the people of British Columbia that they had all the solutions. They were the ones who were going to get the province moving.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. "Work with Bill."

MR. KING: They were the ones who, with their teamwork and "work with Bill," were going to stimulate the economy and get everybody to work. We've heard of the ads that the Minister of Economic Development placed in the paper talking about all the unemployed, and here today we are confronted, 14 or 15 months after the election of that businessmen's coalition, with 112,000 British Columbians out of work.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Shocking!

MR. KING: And the best this minister can talk about, Mr. Chairman, is: "Yes, I have some long-term solutions." Lord knows what he has in terms of long-term solutions. He hasn't articulated them at all in debate in this House. He has just given some vague assurance that there are some long-term solutions. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that unemployed people are not just some cold statistic. There are 112,000 human beings who are without jobs at which they can earn their livelihood and support their families in British Columbia tonight.

I want to ask the House, and particularly all of the members down in that right wing or back wing or rear guard of the Social Credit benchers who are so fond of attacking the trade union movement in the province of British Columbia, what they would be saying tonight if 112,000 people in the province of British Columbia were idle as the result of a work stoppage. You'd hear calls, Mr. Chairman, for the most regressive, punitive kind of labour legislation one could imagine to put a halt to this idleness, to this lost productivity. And yet there they sit passively not offering one solution themselves, not even questioning the minister on behalf of their constituents except to get up and pay some docile, subservient lip service to him, which is small and cold comfort to all of the people in their ridings who are unemployed.

Mr. Chairman, the construction industry in the province of British Columbia has about 40,000 workers involved in it, and the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) are very fond of saying: "Well, it's these terrible unions. They won't let people into their membership. They won't let local people go to work. They're a big part of the sin." Did anyone stop to think that if there are 112,000 people unemployed it doesn't matter which people are on the existing jobs? There are going to be 112,000 people unemployed anyway.

But, Mr. Chairman, there are 40,000 people in the construction industry in British Columbia, and I want to tell you that they do not have a permanent employment relationship with an employer. They move from project to project without the benefit of any continuity of relationship between them and their employer in terms of seniority, like I have as a railroader, or like most people have in the manufacturing sector. They lack the benefit of many of the continuous advantages of employment that the manufacturing sector and the primary-resource sector enjoy. They may work for three, four, five months a year. True, they're paid well. They're compensated well in recognition of that fact. But what those members are really suggesting is that those people who have supported that industry, who have qualified themselves in the skills and the crafts and laboured in those crafts for 30 and 40 years in this province should give up their right to employment so that new and inexperienced people can come in and take their jobs away from them. That's the model that the members are putting forward.

I say this, Mr. Chairman: There is a case to be made for employment opportunity for local people, and I want to remind those concerned members over there, Mr. Chairman, that our government introduced a bill in this House, which was passed in 1974, the Public Works Fair Employment Act, which — whether there were aspects about it they would quarrel with or not — did provide the authority to the Minister of Labour to ensure a fair division of local

[ Page 752 ]

employment on any public job. The new government has wiped out the bill but they retained that one section.

Would you believe that in my riding Hydro proposes to build a dam? The first contracts have been awarded, employing about 600 people. Last fall I wrote to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), and I reminded him of the authority which we had granted him in legislation. I asked him to move to ensure that that bill was activated and local people's employment opportunity was protected. Not one noise, not one meeting has the minister called, either with the contractors or with the trade unions involved to negotiate what is a fair division of employment between local people on whose doorstep the resource resides and the trade union movement, who has a legitimate claim to many of those jobs, too.

We don't want confrontation. The trade union people and the contractors are reasonable about it. They recognize a need to give local people a chance, but there has to be lead time. Certainly the Minister of Labour has to have the courage to activate the authority that we gave him in legislation.

So all those freedom fighters sitting over there, concerned about local people, better get after their cabinet colleagues to activate the authority that they hold under the statutes of this province. It's not enough to sit back there and make pious statements, pointing out and assessing blame against trade union people in this province. The trade union people in this province are not responsible for 112,000 unemployed. Nonsense!

I want to draw to the House's attention 40,000 in the total construction industry in this province, another 35,000 in the forest industry. That's about 70,000 or 75,000 people in the two major, primary resource industries, the backbone of the economy in British Columbia. And while you are sitting there, looking for excuses for government inactivity, for government lack of planning, for government inertia, you are failing to recognize that more British Columbians are unemployed tonight than the total employed in the whole construction industry and forest industry combined. And yet they are the people, Mr. Chairman, who in the case of a labour dispute would be screaming to high heaven like a pack of jackals, asking for regressive, punitive anti-labour legislation to halt the economic chaos the trade unions are causing.

Now, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that any intelligent person, any intelligent observer must recognize that lost productivity is lost productivity, whether it's created through work stoppages due to strikes and lockouts, or whether it is created by straight, old-fashioned unemployment brought about by a government that is obsessed with bottom-line economics, brought about by a government that is systematically, but as surely as night follows day, killing the tourist industry and service industries in this province because they have heaped taxation on the backs of people who are working, and destroyed and eliminated any disposable income that they had to spend. And now they're wondering what's happening.

Mr. Chairman, a year ago the opposition warned these people what the inevitable consequences of their direction would be. And if we are a little emotional, and if we're a little repetitive, and if we're saying things that you people don't like hearing, that's our duty. I would hope that we get more than lame, pale excuses from the member for Omineca. I thought that man had a bit of backbone, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: He does, he does.

MR. KING: I thought he was Skeena; I thought he was capable of taking some independent direction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: And here he tries to get up and shift the blame, and say he hasn't heard any solutions. What do you think this exercise is about of justifying the spending of that minister? You were elected to provide solutions. Don't stand there and try and blame the opposition or try to blame the trade union movement.

MR. BARRETT: Demand it!

MR. KING: My God, you were elected with a good majority. Get on with the job! Demonstrate some initiative and some capability. We haven't seen it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, another thing about this minister: he should be talking to his Minister of Labour, his colleague. He should be saying to him: "Look, we have a major project in Revelstoke on the horizon. Are you going to use your statutory authority to ensure that British Columbia gets employment advantage?"

Those members are worrying about Vancouverites. I'm going to tell you that if the Mica Creek project was any indication under the former Social Credit government, they were coming in from Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and all over the place.

MR. BARRETT: San Francisco.

MR. KING: That's right — many from south of the border. Now, if the minister has a grain of concern and compassion in his body, he's going to start coming to grips and meeting with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and presenting some plans and some definitive plans of action before this House.

[ Page 753 ]

Mr. Chairman, the government is obsessed with one, and one possibility alone, it seems to me: the northeast coal development. I have the impression that there is simply one economic straw at which this government is grasping to try and shore up their flagging image in the public mind. There's just one possibility of some economic activity that they can see looming on the horizon and it is the northeast coal development. The problem is, it calls for tremendous public expenditures for the infrastructure of that town — the transportation services and all of the support services for the mine. I indicated in this House earlier that I estimate that that infrastructure cost will be probably equivalent to the capital investment proferred by Denison Mines, which is the major developer, as I understand it — in the area of $400 million of the taxpayers' money. I think that's a political hot potato.

This government is already tagged with being a millionaire's government. The only solace and sustenance they've provided to anyone so far has been to the heirs of millionaires, by the elimination of succession duties and gift tax. If they're to go in now and provide social assistance to Denison Mines to the tune of $400 million of the taxpayers' moneys, I think, Mr. Chairman….

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. KING: I'll give you the back of my hand. I won't give you any input. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I think the people won't tolerate that kind of crass political direction by this government.

So we have the Premier down in Ottawa. The 30-day wonder is down there. He's alternated, you know, between one position and another. He's hopscotching from one spot to the other. First he said: "Ottawa's great, and I have no time for those Premiers and those jurisdictions that go down there on bended knees bowing to the feds." A short time later he came back and he said: "Those terrible feds don't listen to any of us and they wouldn't give me any money." He brought tears to everyone's glass eyes in this House. Now he's back down there again. He's all chummy. And he's pretty desperate, because if there's a political risk to take in financing and providing social assistance to Denison, he wants the federal government involved, too, to share that political risk. So he's down there desperately trying to pry loose some money from the feds to participate.

I just hope, Mr. Chairman, that in the Premier's desperation to demonstrate some social vitality in this struggling and failing province he is not prepared to sell out that great British Columbia Railway as a plum, as a barter device to attract federal dollars into the subsidization of Denison Mines. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier and his Economic Development minister, who have been reeling back and forth between scandal and just plain ineptitude in office, are so desperate at this point they're willing to sell out almost anything to save their political skins in this province.

MR. BARRETT: They sold the ferries and bought them back.

MR. KING: Now I wonder if they're going to sell BCR, or give it away to CNR so that the federal government can agree to come in with some deferred payment perhaps, as a direct subsidy to the minister's friends, the Denison Mines people. Then he can stand up and crow and exercise his leather lungs in that north country from which he hails and say: "Look what I've done for you up here." But at what cost?

Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is a desperate government. They have nothing on the planning board, nothing to come before this House with in terms of any plan, any strategy; not even any employment programmes to assuage the suffering of that 112,000 people out there who are faced with real privation. They're desperate tonight! They don't even have an employment programme, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: They have new suits, though. They won the election and bought new suits.

MR. KING: I'm prepared to make some suggestions. We've made them time after time in this House. The government won't listen. If the government wants to move over, we'll take hold of this province and get it moving again with some vigorous leadership and some sane policies. You're darn right we've got suggestions.

The first thing you should do is eliminate the extra 2 per cent you added on to the sales tax, onto the backs of the people of this province. Remove that! Reduce the income tax down the two points that you increased it. Reduce the tax on building supplies so that construction can be stimulated in this province. They're basically the things that should be done.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, reduce the ICBC rates. Get some disposable income into the hands of the people so they can make demands upon the system and the small businesses in this province can start to flourish again by the demand that's placed upon them for goods and services. And by all means, Mr. Chairman, come up with some leadership and direction. Your little friend behind you there, who everybody calls "Goodbye Mr. Chips," has a report

[ Page 754 ]

on the forest industry. What does he do, instead of direction, instead of decisive leadership? He appoints a committee to study the committee report. This is not what the people elected you for. You told them you were good businessmen and they believed you.

Well, the only one I know who strikes a good business deal is the new Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot). He goes to Calgary to buy his suits and he escapes the 7 per cent sales tax. That's good business.

But, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, and with all good feeling, I must say to the government that the only demonstration of any business sense I've seen has been on behalf of the people who need it least — the very rich and some friends of the government.

It was interesting that tonight in The Vancouver Sun Allan Fotheringham started to identify some of those friends of the government. Many of them are doing very, very well, in terms of salaries. But I want to assure the government, Mr. Chairman, that you can't hire all your friends and hope to dent that 112,000 people who are unemployed and suffering in this province. This government hasn't got enough friends. I'm surprised that they have as many as were published in the Sun. I suggest that perhaps by next week when the list is published, there might be only five left because they're losing friends very quickly in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I basically wanted to talk about the unemployment situation. I wanted to talk about the provisions of the new Fair Employment Practices Act and the authority that's vested in a minister of the Crown through that Act. I want to say to the Minister of Economic Development that that's certainly relevant to his own function which is tremendously impaired by the scandals that surround his whole handling and the whole conduct of his office. He needs all the help he can get in terms of trying to generate some credibility and some confidence. That's part of the problem — the minister is seen as a lame duck. No one takes him seriously. I doubt that anyone ever trusts the conversation in his office. It's too bad. It's little wonder that the province is on the skids.

I really think, as my colleague suggested, that if that minister is as sincere as I think he is and if he really believed the speeches that he used to make in this House, then perhaps he'll do the best thing for the province and step down until all the clouds are removed from his head, so that somebody with some vigour, perhaps one of the younger members of the House, like the young government Whip (Mr. Mussallem)…. (Laughter.)

Get one of the young, dynamic members to replace you, a man with some vigour and sense of urgency in this modern era, a man who, if necessary, will take unusual steps to generate employment, a man who has an unquenchable thirst for Fraser River water (laughter), which indicates that he must have a constitution as tough as an ox. Perhaps as a consequence of that kind of constitution, he'd be able to stand the climate in the cabinet benches better than even you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, it is serious. I think the best thing for you to do if you have a high regard for the interests of 112,000 people who are in trouble, if you have a high regard for the interest and the public welfare of this province, is to put that regard ahead of your own political self-interest. You will step down until you are cleared of all of the suspicion of impropriety that surrounds your office, step down until all of that cloud of suspicion is removed. There is a cloud of suspicion which surrounds the conduct of affairs in your office, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. KING: The minister is threatening me now, Mr. Chairman. He has me terrified.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd expect that from your leader, but not from you.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there's no question that when that minister's executive assistant, the highest-paid underling of that minister, is dismissed for dabbling in the stock market in shares that were affected by government action directly, it is improper. I categorize it as completely improper. I say that that minister must accept the responsibility for the conduct of his staff. It's not good enough to dismiss them and whitewash yourself in an attempt to divest yourself of responsibility. If you are a competent minister, you must accept the responsibility too. The best and honourable thing is to step down, Mr. Minister.

MR. LAUK: There are a number of points that were raised this afternoon and this evening, mostly through the minister's attempt to avoid responsibility for his portfolio. Well, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) dealt with the question of this minister taking credit for what little the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is doing. It's very amusing. They're fighting over one slice of bread.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. LAUK: Oh, he was taking credit for the highways programme earlier this afternoon. If there's anything going to create jobs, says the minister, it's in Highways. So let's talk about that.

MR. GIBSON: More like dry toast.

[ Page 755 ]

MR. LAUK: Half a piece of Melba toast is what the ministers are fighting over to take credit. And then we find out a contract was let that would allow for more jobs for people from Alberta. And then after a very skilful and able report from the member for Prince Rupert, the minister stands in his place and he says: "Oh, well, we had to let it out to an Alberta firm because everybody else in B.C. was busy."

I have a couple of phone numbers here. I phoned a couple of contracting firms and they were out. They weren't in this evening. But I'm going to phone them tomorrow, Mr. Minister. I've got a sneaking suspicion that they would just love to bid on this. They're in B.C. firms and I'm sure they'll give you or the Minister of Highways the commitment. There he is. The Minister of Highways, Mr. Chairman, is sitting right in the back there. Would the press gallery take note? The Minister of Highways is here tonight! Congratulations. And these firms, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, will very gladly hire and employ British Columbians in the building of highways.

But even if it were so that all of these contracting firms were too busy, I want to ask the minister what happened to the western industry ministers' conference. I attended a few, and we started some years ago a programme to plan these kinds of major construction projects in such a way that firms in every province — particularly in Alberta and B.C. — would not be so taxed that their bids would have to go up accordingly in terms of time and so on.

But I'm sure the minister can't be serious that for a little highway project all of these construction companies are busy. Barring that kind of planning interprovincially, why doesn't the Highways department or the Department of Economic Development or some new Crown corporation start building their own highways?

Oh, he laughs. He laughs. We've seen the recent estimates of construction of the British Columbia Railway. In each and every case of the contracts that were tabled in this House by the Leader of the Opposition in June of last year, sometimes two or three times over the amount bid by the highest bidder was finally paid on each and every contract. What kind of game is going on here? I don't want to dwell on that because that particular issue is going to be before Mr. Justice MacKenzie, and he'll deal with it very capably. But who is the minister trying to kid? Start building your own highways if they're too busy. It's certainly not a complaint I've heard from the B.C. Road Builders Association or from the construction industry generally.

MR. LEA: I'll be talking to them tomorrow. I could mention it.

MR. LAUK: The northwest rail agreement. I couldn't believe my ears as I was outside of the chamber and the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) asked about the northwest rail agreement. I heard the answer the minister gave.

Let's go back a few steps in the northwest rail agreement. In 1973, an agreement in principle was signed between the province of British Columbia and the national government to participate in railway building in the northwest of this great province. And it took us almost two years to negotiate the final agreement. It was difficult and it took a lot of hours, but it was achieved. And yes, a stolen telegram beat us to the punch; we couldn't announce it. So what! I'm not going to cry about that. You can't cry about that. Some parties have better sticky-fingered people than we do. Nevertheless, that's what happens. Those are the breaks in the political game.

But, you know, the thing that really broke my heart as a British Columbian was that out of crass, political, egotistical reasons, that new government shelved an agreement that would have provided upwards of $115 million to $135 million towards the Dease Lake extension and other railway upgrading and building in the northwest. Put on the shelf for pure petty, childish, juvenile egotistical, political reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LAUK: The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) stands in this House tonight and says: "What happened to the northwest agreement?" The minister stands up and says, "we're still in negotiation," and there's 30 per cent unemployment in that area. What's so weak about the member for Skeena? I don't know why everybody always pats the member for Skeena on the back. He's the man who walks boldly up to the firing line and, at the first volley that's fired, he runs and his kilt is flying in the wind. I won't make any further comment on that. He's got the riding with 30 per cent unemployment. His riding would have benefited the most by continuing the northwest rail agreement and fulfilling our obligations — $130 million — and the minister this afternoon announces a $70 million loss for 1976 on the British Columbia Railway. What a travesty! The people of this province are paying increased taxation — the ordinary people — for a petty, juvenile, egotistical political move on the part of the new government.

The next thing that happened was very, very disappointing. It disappointed me in particular. The minister's deputy can inform him of how hard we worked over so many years — it seemed like 100 years to me, even though it was only three — to make a steel mill in this province a reality.

MR. BARRETT: You did a good job.

[ Page 756 ]

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

MR. BARRETT: You did a really good job.

MR. LAUK: Thank you. The Leader of the Opposition says I did a good job, and I want you to know that I agree with him — in all modesty.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Look where it's coming from. (Laughter.) I needed that extra push. Now I'm going to go for it. I'm convinced. I had severe doubts before, but when Lyle says go for it, that's it. I know the writing is on the wall.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Well, you know, in all sincerity and in all seriousness, we signed an agreement with Nippon-Kokan and there was a full and complete understanding of the economic frailties and problems of placing such a major project in an area such as British Columbia with such a low domestic market, a small population. We recognized clearly there would be problems. We also knew that financing for such a major project would be an extremely difficult hurdle. All of those things taken into consideration, what we proposed to do was selflessly do something for the people of this province for their future.

We provided, I would think, a little bit of vision, a sprinkling of courage, and some imagination. We sat down with the Nippon-Kokan people and, at the end of the signing of that agreement, a certain unnamed member of the opposition had a conversation, that was reported to me later, with Nippon-Kokan. They said: "Why on earth would you sign an agreement to build a steel mill in British Columbia?" Do you know what the answer was? And that member would never tell you the answer. The answer was: "Because we are now dealing with a government in British Columbia that ties another price tag on their natural resources, and that's added value — providing jobs — and we're willing to pay that price." They are willing to pay that price, except that this great negotiator from Dawson Creek goes and tubes it, pure and simple. I hope I'm not getting too personal, but that was the most oafish display I've ever seen in my entire life.

I won't reveal to you the comments I've heard from various sources in Tokyo as a result of the minister's visit, but it was absolutely the most embarrassing display of ineptitude that I've ever heard of. He doesn't understand one basic concept of business. When people want your coking coal they'll pay for it, and sometimes it's not the price per ton, it's building a steel mill in the province. That's what the deal was all about, but this innocent abroad tubed the deal.

We were about to announce a steel mill in Prince George — we were considering Kitimat or Prince George as two available sites — Prince George because of the already sophisticated industrial labour force, and we could have coped with the transportation problem having the mill away from tidewater. There would have been….

Where's the member for Prince George (Mr. Lloyd)? Where's the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford)?

MR. KAHL: With a speech like yours it's no wonder they're not there.

MR. LEA: Where's the member for Dawson Creek (Hon. Mr. Phillips)?

MR. LAUK: The member for Esquimalt says that with a speech like mine it's a wonder they're not here. I agree. If they had any guts at all, they wouldn't be sitting on that side of the House. They cancelled a steel mill project that would have provided a medium-sized mill — 3,400 jobs. In a sophisticated industry like a steel mill you multiply that by five — not the usual three, as in a resource industry, but five. That's the number of jobs in the Prince George area alone. We're not even getting into the spinoff in the lower mainland. We're not even discussing British Columbia's self-sufficiency in steel. We're not even discussing the bargaining power and the economic thrust that a small population in this province would have had in the future had that government over there had some of the vision that we did. A complete and utter wasteland sitting on the opposite side. No vision. No faith in the people of this province and no faith in the future of this province. I can't believe what I'm hearing and I can't believe what I'm seeing in this chamber tonight.

MR. KAHL: I can't believe what I am hearing either.

MR. LAUK: I have never seen such cynicism in all my life. The minister feels it's perfectly all right to stand up and say anything in this chamber. It's perfectly all right to ignore what he's said in previous years. If he had any common decency at all he would step down. There's no question about that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister obviously views his role as one of the comic relief, from time to time getting up and answering a few very nice, well-put questions by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), but otherwise answering no questions at all. Mr. Chairman, the minister stands condemned by this House today. We're told that he is exporting jobs to Alberta, that province with a billion dollars of extra revenue per year from oil, a province where there isn't a high unemployment situation in

[ Page 757 ]

the first place. That minister decides to sit quietly or, from time to time, get up and endeavour to bamboozle the House and imply that he is answering questions. Let's see what that minister said to the Premier of the province in 1973. Let me quote, Mr. Chairman. That member, when he was a member for Peace River, got up in the House on February 26, 1973, and he said:

"The Premier has stood and said that he is not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. 'And,' he says, Mr. Chairman, 'We are learning.' Well, I appreciate that the Premier is learning. He's got to learn. But he should not learn at the expense of 90,000 unemployed."

Incidentally, he inflated that figure. But he said that he was concerned in those days for 90,000 unemployed.

"These 90,000 unemployed draw approximately $400 unemployment a month. That is $36 million in unemployment a month being paid out in British Columbia. Yet the Premier says, Mr. Chairman, that he's going to spend $64.8 million a month in unemployment insurance. There's something wrong somewhere…."

that member said.

I agree that there's something wrong somewhere, particularly today. There's something wrong in this province when the one person who had all the answers, all the full-page ads and all the answers to the ills of this province, when once being charged with the responsibility, has seen everything going in exactly the opposite direction to that which he's predicted it would.

Many of us we see that minister as the member who had all sorts of things to say but really had no advice. He stood up in this House tonight and he said: "What's your advice?" He didn't need advice. He had it all. He knew it all, Mr. Chairman. Those were the days when he had no responsibility except to rip up or tear down any government member that he had access to. No, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that that minister is somewhat embarrassed, despite the fact that he doesn't embarrass easily.

Mr. Chairman, we heard about the north closing down on February 26, 1973. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) knows differently, and the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) is honest enough to admit differently in this House. He talked about 30 per cent unemployment in his area during the reply to the budget.

Mr. Chairman, let's just go back and see what this minister, then member, said. He said:

"You would suggest, Mr. Premier, that you think you can solve this problem, because you know, I know, and the people in the interior of B.C. know there are people up there, sawmills and service industries who are begging people to work for them — begging people to work for them. Yet you know, I know and everybody else in the province knows, Mr. Premier, there are young, married men in Vancouver in the lower mainland who are presently on unemployment insurance."

That's exactly the same kind of argument that the member for Omineca used the other day. He said: "Send them up. Send them up to Omineca. We'll find them jobs." That minister, in his fumbling way, is trying desperately to suggest to this province that the 112,000 is an accident and that something good is going to happen down the road.

I saw him stand up a little while ago. Do you know what he said; "Good days ahead! Big plans!" He didn't indicate what those plans might be, just "big plans." Mr. Chairman, he is a fumbling, bumbling minister taking lessons from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot), no doubt.

Mr. Chairman, in 1973 he said: "We must do something to arrest the increasing numbers of unemployed in this province." He went on to say to the Premier at that time: "You've got to devote some attention to perfecting these ideas, to do something and do it now!" Oh, Mr. Chairman, he then went on to say: "If you don't, Mr. Premier, I would suggest that we don't give you a pay raise" — what did he mean by that? — "that we decrease your salary." This is the old method of suggesting incompetence in a minister. If we've ever had an opportunity to assess incompetency, we have it in this minister, this minister with a cloud over his head.

Many, many other suggestions were raised, but I'd just like to deal with Quasar for a moment. You know, that minister has a strange fascination with Quasar Petroleum. Even back in 1973, just as an opposition backbencher, he was breaking his back then to promote that company's prospects. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, Mr. Chairman, that he's kind of sweet on Quasar when he becomes minister.

What kind of sugar is involved here? Let me quote the minister from February 2, 1973, on Quasar:

"Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a moment to you about the Monkman Pass area. The reason I'm bringing it up at this time, instead of waiting until the Department of Highways estimates come up, is because yesterday at 11 o'clock I attended the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources) in his office, and he issued a statement that said a total of $6.895 million was added to the provincial coffers from the sale of land and drilling rights.

"The other reason that this is so timely is the fact that the two largest bids, one by Quasar Petroleum and the other by Texaco Explorations of Canada Ltd…. The highest amount of money per acre was paid by these two companies in an area 65 miles south of Dawson Creek in the Monkman Pass area."

He went on to say:

[ Page 758 ]

"Early last November I forwarded a brief, complete with maps and all the details to the Premier. In this brief I stated that the Monkman Pass area at the present time had five oil wells drilling down there and that 90 per cent of the spinoff revenue, employment, and provision of services was going to Alberta, and this concerned me."

I also pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in that same letter that we could alleviate this problem very easily by having the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources snowplough the road for the winter. They didn't have to worry about the present time because it's frozen hard. At the present time it's a forestry road and has restrictions on it.

I also pointed out to the Premier than any of the civil servants who wanted to go into the area had to write to Victoria to get permission to take their car in through Alberta or hop a plane which is flying into the area because Quasar Petroleum has built a very nice landing site out there.

Mr. Chairman, he knew the company, and I suspect that that knowledge and that association developed.

I would just like to also suggest that the minister who has so much trouble getting people employed also has some significant things to say about Sukunka. In 1973, the minister sang a quite different song. This is what he said in 1973. He talked about the development of Sukunka coal.

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly disturbed by comments in the press and on the radio and television made by politicians regarding the development of Sukunka coal. These comments are being made mainly by politicians from the Liberal faith.

Let's go back in history. At that time, the Liberals hadn't made a switch. At that time, the Liberals were opposed to what this member was talking about with respect to development of Sukunka coal, obviously, because he says:

These comments are being made mainly by the politicians from the Liberal faith — both in this Legislature and particularly a Liberal member from the federal government. I feel that a lot of these comments, Mr. Speaker, have been made without the politicians doing their proper research. These statements, Mr. Speaker, are being made by these politicians without consideration for the overall development and the overall good of the province of British Columbia.

Now, suddenly, the marriage has taken place, and the Liberals have become Social Crediters, or the Social Crediters have become Liberals, or something in between. The minister doesn't seem to have quite the same kind of criticism for the Liberal members. However, it's very interesting to see that there obviously is some discussion going on in that cabinet by virtue of the fact that it takes so long to come up with a decision around whether or not we should have a royal commission, or whether or not we should have a judicial inquiry, or just what we should do. It strikes me that there are some politics involved. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to go on about the importance of the Sukunka to that member when he was a member. He was then talking about how it should be an all-Canadian company that develops the Sukunka field. What did he say? He said, Mr. Chairman:

"I would like, Mr. Speaker, to look at some of the cold, hard facts regarding the development of the Sukunka coal. The development of the coal deposits are in an area south of Chetwynd known as the Sukunka Valley. And they will be financed…"

Note this, Mr. Chairman.

"…by an all-Canadian company. We have heard criticism in this House before of our resources being developed by outside money."

Well, Mr. Chairman, who's doing the developing now? Can I use an initial? B.P. Mr. Chairman, how the leopard changes its spots and jumps across the floor. An all-Canadian becomes B.P. No, he'd sell out anything. He cooperated with the Minister of Highways earlier in selling jobs to an Alberta company. We are going to bring in non-union members from Alberta.

I had to smile at the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) jumping up in this House and talking about union members from Vancouver going up and receiving jobs in your area, Mr. Member for Skeena, through you, Mr. Chairman. Well, that's one of the situations I guess that we have to live with. But what do you think? I didn't hear one word of criticism from you on what those two ministers have done with respect to bringing in non-union workers from Alberta for the lowest bidder. No concern there for B.C. jobs. No concern from that member for Skeena at that point — not one point did he raise with respect to that situation. No, sir. He was worried because some of the poor members from Vancouver were going up to your area.

And yet the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), that great friend of the poor, was standing in this House and saying, "Send the unemployed people from Vancouver up to Omineca. We've got lots of jobs for them." As a matter of fact, he's going to go back up there and find them all jobs. Why don't you be as easy to get along with as the member for Omineca? He says there are jobs in the north. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we both know they're fooling.

The minister used to trumpet the importance of selling our coal to Europe, not to the Japanese. Again, that was back in 1973. He said B.C. should avoid becoming dependent on Japanese sales. I note today he spoke a little bit about selling some coal to Europe. He says he meant it; he said it was serious.

[ Page 759 ]

What did he do last year in Japan besides drinking tea? Mr. Chairman, he was begging the Japanese to buy our coal and he was willing to sell it on their terms. He even got skunked on the steel mill. Back there, however, in the good old days when he was a free-wheeling opposition member, he said:

"The second significant thing about the development of the Sukunka coal deposit is the fact that over 60 per cent of the coal will tap an entirely new market. This is a very important fact, Mr. Speaker — an entirely new market. This new market is in the European Common Market which has a potential for future sales far greater than that of Japanese markets. That is a very, very important fact, Mr. Speaker. We must realize that our exports to Japan, although very welcome, should not any way dominate our export trade."

He's so desperate now he was prepared to give up the steel mill.

"This is a very, very important fact we must consider in the future. The reason, of course, is obvious: we don't want British Columbia to be so tied to the economy of one single country, namely, Japan, that if Japan sneezes British Columbia gets a cold. I mean this. This is very serious. You should have witnessed last year what happened in the United States. They closed the dollar, devaluated the yen. You know what happened."

So, Mr. Chairman, these are interesting, interesting facts we have before us today. The interesting facts are that this province is in a mess, a mess brought about by a government that was so completely lacking in any kind of foresight whatsoever they squeezed the province to death. They're squeezing the businesses out, and that minister is largely responsible.

Certainly we were all told by a great many of the wizards in the press that he was the adviser to the Premier, he was the man who was the authority on almost everything, and the Premier was listening. I presume that that kind of filtered down to the other ministers.

Heaven help this province! We need more than heaven today. One of the best things that could happen, of course, would be if that minister would stand up in the House and either give us some answers, give us some direction, or quit. Move over! I'm sure that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would gladly take your place — the bright young man from Omineca.

Mr. Chairman, in 1973, he had so much to say, so much indeed. I particularly wanted to talk about some of the other areas, but I just want to say one thing. In 1973 the minister's speech pointedly decried the use of the CNR Prince George–Prince Rupert route for exporting Sukunka coal. He was sweet to the BCR route at that time. He wanted it to come down to Squamish. Where does the whirling dervish go today? At that time he said:

"Now let us look at some of the mileage involved. The rail miles over the British Columbia Railway from Chetwynd to Prince George is 196.6 miles; from Prince George to the port of Squamish over the PGE it is 422.9 miles; and from Prince George to Prince Rupert over the Canadian National it's 466. From this it is fairly easy to see that it's shorter from Prince George to Squamish than from Prince George to Prince Rupert by 45.1 miles. Not a great number of miles so far as railways are concerned, but it's also a very important fact. The grades over the B.C. Railway from Prince George to Squamish are far better than the grades over the CN."

Mr. Chairman, what's he talking about now? I would ask that minister why he doesn't get up and tell us what he's going to do. Is he going to advocate some of the things which were argumentative to say the least, that he was advocating in 1973? He couldn't even agree with himself in one speech. Is that minister, who is preoccupied with royal commissions all over the province, now going to get up and tell us what he's going to do for the 112,000 people who are unemployed? Is he going to tell us what he's going to do for the small businesses that are leaving this province in droves? Is he going to tell us what he's going to do for the general economy of B.C.?

Come on, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, just stand up and bare your soul. Let us have an insight into what we can expect in the future from you and from your government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, we've heard a great deal of discussion today about unemployment, and certainly the problem in Victoria is just as serious as it is in the north country, with no disrespect to our members for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) or Omineca (Mr. Kempf), or anywhere else. There's a report from Canada Manpower's manager which appeared in the Victoria Times on Monday, February 7 — yesterday — where, for example, the greater Victoria area has 130 unemployed teachers, 42 unemployed university instructors, 62 unemployed trained social workers, 45 unemployed registered nurses.

I was very interested in the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. Williams') comment about the construction and forest industry. In the greater Victoria area, there are 1,207 construction workers unemployed, 257 loggers, 166 sawmill employees, 204 cooks, 390 waiters and waitresses, 142 chambermaids, 64 bartenders, 154 stenographers and secretaries, and 156 bookkeepers. We have 279 professionally trained people out of work, and that seems to be a very sorry recital of figures which this government was elected to correct. It was the one theme that the Social Credit party hammered relentlessly on the election platform: "Elect us and we'll get things rolling." The

[ Page 760 ]

most up-to-date figures today show that unemployment's worse than ever.

One of the members — I think the member for Skeena, Mr. Chairman — said he hadn't heard of any solutions from this side of the House. I don't know where the member for Skeena has been since we came in here on January 13, but at least I have been trying to suggest that in any economy, when you start off with rule No. 1 being that there's no way but no way that there will ever be any borrowing to create jobs, then you so hamstring the government right off the bat that there's no wonder the situation is getting worse. If you must only have black ink on the budget, no matter how many thousands are unemployed, then, of course, you immediately eliminate at least one of the short-term solutions to unemployment.

I'm just a little tired of listening to the minister today talk about the long-term solutions. There's 112,000 people who are rather interested in a short-term solution. If the minister looks at economies in other industrialized nations, surely he would realize that there are many, if not all of them, who recognize that you sometimes have to spend a buck to make a buck, that you sometimes have to borrow in the short run to create jobs in the short run and, at the same time, pursue these longer-term goals which the minister quite rightly has described, such as the long-term development of an energy resource such as coal.

But, Mr. Chairman, this relentless suggestion — and more than a suggestion — a commitment that first of all we balance the books and then we see what we can do about unemployment, is just such an unrealistic approach to modern economies in industrialized nations that it really makes me despair. It is one thing to take this holier-than-thou approach of fiscal responsibility, which indeed we should have, but fiscal responsibility which ignores the hardship of people numbering 112,000 who are unemployed I think is a rigidity and a blind adhering to a policy which is just not working, and which one year of experience by this government should show isn't working. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it's much more productive to borrow money in a modest amount and employ people who otherwise are being paid the unproductive kind of money which is unemployment insurance and welfare. It seems that this government is blindly adherent to the idea that, no matter what else happens, we'll balance the books and then we'll see what we can do about unemployment. That seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse or to be adopting an attitude which has no real commitment to finding answers.

I would like to ask the minister specifically on a problem raised in the House yesterday, about which all the members in the greater Victoria area are concerned, which typifies the general theme that I've just been trying to outline. That is the case of a fish packing and processing plant in Victoria which started off in a very small manner as a small business. It succeeded, it developed foreign markets, and the management decided to expand the plant. I'm not sufficiently versed in all the financial details but, in combination with new capitalization of the company, they ran into the worst season in 1976 that they had had in their 18 years. As a result, Oakland Industries is facing extinction and we face the fact that perhaps close to another 100 residents of Victoria, within the next day or two, could become unemployed.

Now, I know the minister took the matter in question period yesterday and I understand that a meeting was to be held on this particular problem with representatives of the Bank of B.C., the Federal Business Development Bank and the Japanese participants in the venture. I wonder if the minister held this meeting today and whether he could tell us that he's been able to find some financial solution. Once again, I understand that some fairly small financing in the short run might provide the kind of time and reconsideration of all the parties concerned, whereby a longer-term financial solution could be found for Oakland Industries. But it just seems to typify the problems that we have in British Columbia; that small businesses quite often show a very remarkable degree of initiative in getting started and then, as they try to expand, there seems to be this all too frequent problem that they run into financial difficulties. They either fold completely or, worse still, we then have people carping because they're bought out by some non-Canadian interest once they're in receivership.

I understand that there's even a possibility that Oakland industries might finish up as another subsidiary of Canada Fish which, in turn, is a subsidiary of a New England fishing company.

MR. LEA: Which, in turn….

MR. WALLACE: And I don't know "which, in turn" comes after that!

At any rate, Mr. Chairman, Oakland Industries typifies many of the problems of small business in British Columbia. And while I realize that there has to be some point where government cannot necessarily provide funding if, in fact, the project is not viable, there's a great deal of evidence in this case to suggest that it has been a very viable industry for 18 years in Victoria. It would seem that now is a moment when the minister could prove his conviction that such arms of his ministry as the B.C. Development Corporation can and will come to the support of industries such as Oakland Industries, at a time when — as I pointed out in my earlier comments — we have 10 per cent or more unemployment in Victoria already.

[ Page 761 ]

Not only is the unemployment factor such a serious one, but in the long run it would appear that, if Oakland Industries does go under and goes bankrupt, there seems to be at least a possibility that it will finally end up in foreign ownership.

I don't know how often in this House and in reports from the federal House I hear cries of anguish that all of our industries and our economy are becoming progressively owned to a greater and greater degree by foreign interests. Yet here, right on our own doorstep in the capital city, is one industry where perhaps, right now, this government has the opportunity to give short-term support, in the hope that once the herring harvest has been realized, the picture might be so appreciably changed that the long-term future of the industry also can be sustained. I wonder if the minister could give us some report on the meeting that took place today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I stated, we did have a meeting this morning of all the financial interests concerned with the Oakland cannery. Unfortunately, as I have stated to the press, I cannot state that the operation is going to go on. I can assure you that we will do everything within our power to see that those people, those 300-odd workers inside, who would normally be employed during the herring season, will be employed. One of the problems we're facing, of course, is the time factor. I'll be back on that in the morning and I haven't heard about certain deliberations that were going on this afternoon.

MR. WALLACE: All of the matter is not lost?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's not lost yet.

MR. KING: If you had some credibility you could keep it going. We've got no confidence in you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what the member has identified, of course, is really one of the problems that he wants us to solve now by short-term measures. As I was pointing out to the meeting this morning, here we have an announcement recently that the federal government is going to pour $8.3 million into British Columbia on make-work programmes. And what, really, is it going to solve? It's going to put some people to work on a short-term basis. But what we have to come up with in this country are policies that will leave the profits in the hands of the people who make them and allow them to create the employment.

MR. KING: People starve in the meantime.

AN HON. MEMBER: But it doesn't work that way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It will work.

MR. LEA: It hasn't worked!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It will work! It's just policies like you brought in when you were there and you come in with a full budget — you come in with a surplus.

MR. KING: You come in with an empty mind.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What did you do with it? In three short years you blew it.

MR. KEMPF: You spent it all in three years.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now you stand up and you talk about what we should be doing. Not only did you have a full budget and a surplus when you came in in 1972, but you had a moving economy. What happened? Not only did you have a moving economy, but in many industries you had the best years ever in 1973 and 1974 — in the mining industry.

MR. LEA: Name them!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What did you do with it? That's one of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we're faced with the problems that we're faced with tonight. We've got some problems and we have to come to grips with them.

One of the first things we did in this department early last spring was to identify those areas in our economy over which the province of British Columbia has control and those areas of the economy of British Columbia over which Ottawa has control. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's why we're negotiating with Ottawa, that's why we're making certain representations to Ottawa with regard to the economy of British Columbia, because Ottawa realizes that one of the bright stars on the horizon for the economic recovery of Canada is British Columbia.

MR. LEA: A 30-day ultimatum you gave them, and they turned you down.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, we hear a lot of yapping over there from the member for Prince Rupert. I want to tell you that we've made more progress in our dealings with Ottawa of a positive nature by dealing and by negotiating, not by confrontation. That group over there should never talk in any way, shape or form about dealings with Ottawa.

MR. LEA: Glad to hear it. What have you got so far?

[ Page 762 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just bite your tongue, Mr. Member. All things will come in due course. I know that you're interested and I know you want the economy of British Columbia to move out of the doldrums you put it in while you were government, and it will. I have every faith that it will.

MR. LEA: What are you doing to help it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to assure the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) that I will be on this problem again first thing in the morning to see what we can possibly do because, as I stated before, here we have these short-term policies again — pump-priming — while an industry that has the potential to employ people year after year in one of our primary industries is in trouble. It bothers me, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, the same as it bothers you, if that particular industry goes down the drain. If it does, it will be the result of policies which have not worked. We must come to grips with it. We must realize that the real incentive we must return to small industry is the incentive to make a profit.

Mr. Chairman, if we want Canadians to own Canadian industry, if we want British Columbians to own British Columbia, the first thing we have to do is leave sufficient of their own profits in their own bank accounts so that, indeed, they can own British Columbia, and Canadians can own Canada. It's going to take a reversal of thinking in this country. It's going to take a reversal of thinking in Ottawa, and you know how things change, because we're not condemning profits as much as we were a couple of years ago. I think we've come the full circle. I think there is hope. We have a great habit of condemning our great industrial friends, our free-enterprisers south of the borders. It's a great whipping-boy for would-be nationalists. It's a great whipping-boy for the socialists: "Oh, damn the Americans!" But I'll tell you, as soon as they were government they ran across the border to borrow money.

MR. KING: Where did you hear that?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We can learn a few lessons from our friends south of the border.

MR. KING: Your Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is a separatist.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We can have the government keep their sticky fingers out of private enterprise because their economy is functioning, and it's functioning well. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's one of the reasons our socialist friends across the way like to heap scorn on our American neighbours to the south. Maybe we should all take a little look at our American neighbours to the south. Maybe we have a lesson to learn from them.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): It must be very reassuring to those 200 or 300 Oakland Industries workers. The minister met with somebody this morning and nothing came out of the meeting. There were other meetings this afternoon. He hasn't heard anything about those meetings, which suggests to those workers that either he wasn't interested enough to bother finding out, or else there just wasn't anything worth reporting out of those meetings, worth carrying the message to the minister.

I'm sure if there had been anything at all to bring back to the minister, either a good report — something encouraging to offer to those workers — or information for the House, or had there been any kind of assistance required from the minister, someone would have found some way of getting to him this afternoon or this evening. So I think, Mr. Chairman, that the fact he has absolutely nothing to report except that there was a meeting and he hasn't bothered to find out, or hasn't heard anything about it since, can hardly be encouraging to the people who are wondering what is going to happen to their livelihood.

If those same workers can recall the promises that were made during an election campaign to approximately the same number of workers in Prince Rupert by that same gang opposite, including that minister, they can have little encouragement from the sympathy offered by the minister — not only the sympathy, but the pious statements about how great it is for people to be making a profit.

It doesn't really matter whether people have a livelihood; it doesn't matter whether they have jobs; it doesn't matter whether they have an income to buy the food that we're producing or importing. As long as somebody somewhere sometime has an opportunity to make a profit, that's really all that counts. As long as we maintain that principle, then all will be right some day, sometime, somewhere in the world.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure what vote 79 has to do with that, Mr. Chairman, but if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would like to stand up and make that remark relevant, well, then, we'll deal with that as well.

MR. KING: Do you want to call another inquiry, Garde?

MR. LEA: It's your only employment programme.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, that your colleagues are disturbing you.

[ Page 763 ]

The hon. member for Nanaimo has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I do hope that when we next come to hear from the Minister of Economic Development he'll have something more constructive to offer the workers of Oakland Industries, something more constructive than he's offered so far in this debate — a simple report that he met with somebody this morning and lectured to them about the necessity of making a profit. There was a meeting this afternoon about which he has heard nothing, and in which he apparently is not particularly interested. He'll likely do something, or other tomorrow morning if it suits him, and if it is drawn to his attention.

For the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) to stand up and say that he's heard nothing constructive from this side of the House…. I suppose there's some excuse for him saying it because he didn't sit in this House during the three and one-third years that the NDP formed the government when this particular minister established an unblemished record for being completely negative on everything that came up.

Never during the course of that 40 months did he have one constructive word to say. He built his reputation on that. He spoke long on every occasion when every positive suggestion came up from the other side of the House to maintain employment in the province and to create employment. He opposed every single measure that the government introduced or talked about. Never once can I recall, nor can anyone else…. I challenge them to try to recall any single occasion when that particular member said anything constructive about providing employment in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, he acquired such a reputation and such a record during that period that he seems to feel that his responsibility to this date is to carry on in that same vein. Because during the 13 months that he's been minister, he has kept up his reputation and his record of never saying anything constructive, and attacks other people in the community who are trying to do something about the B.C. economy.

During the 13 months he's been Minister of Economic Development he has criticized all kinds of people in our community and outside of our community for not doing something about job opportunities in the province of British Columbia.

For the first several months it was the out-going NDP administration that had done everything wrong and made his job so difficult, and made it so impossible for him to create employment in the province. It's February, 1977 — the election was in December, 1975 — and he still says it's because when we came into office in 1972 there was a surplus, that surplus disappeared during our administration, and because that happened he finds it impossible to create profits for companies and thereby save jobs for some 300 workers at Oakland Industries. What a complete abdication of responsibility!

He's supposed to be the Minister of Economic Development. He has still not offered one constructive word. All he has said is: "Some day I trust something will happen that will make things better, because some day, once again, an opportunity will arise in this province where people will see that there is a possibility of making a profit, and they'll go out and make a profit." Mr. Chairman, that's all this minister has to offer, this minister who was so full of suggestions and criticism, but never one positive suggestion. He was always negative and is still being negative. He is still offering nothing constructive.

I recall him saying that he went to Japan and talked to the Japanese about….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. STUPICH: I thought you were saying "time." If you're saying "aye," well, I'm not quite finished.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Time.

MR. STUPICH: Time? Would you like me to move that the committee rise and report?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.